UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4205

KEVIN DALE EWING,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-28)

Submitted: September 6, 2002

Decided: September 25, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, David R. Bungard,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Kevin Dale Ewing appeals his conviction of one count of being a

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000) and sentence to forty-six months in

prison and three years of supervised release. We affirm. 

On appeal, Ewing’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief, Ewing’s

counsel briefed three issues, all of which counsel ultimately concluded were not meritorious: (1) whether the district court erred when

it denied Ewing’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from his

residence; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it

refused to accept his proposed plea agreement; and (3) whether the

district court erred when it failed to apply a two-level reduction for

acceptance of responsibility. Ewing was informed of his right to file

a supplemental pro se brief but failed to do so. 

We review the district court’s factual findings underlying a motion

to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s legal determinations

de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996);

United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a

suppression motion has been denied, this Court reviews the evidence

in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v.

Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the

district court’s denial of Ewing’s motion to suppress the evidence

seized from the search of his residence and find no error. 

The district court refused to allow Ewing to enter a conditional plea

that allowed him to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to police officers following the search of his residence. We ordinarily review the district court’s decision to reject a

guilty plea for abuse of discretion. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S.

2 UNITED STATES v. EWING
257, 262 (1971). Because Ewing did not object to the alleged error

below, however, we review for plain error. See United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993); United States v. Martinez, 277

F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir. 2002). The district court is not required to

accept a defendant’s conditional plea of guilty. United States v. Muldoon, 931 F.2d 282, 288 (4th Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).

We have reviewed the record and find no plain error. 

The district court refused to apply a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 3E1.1 (1998) because Ewing tested positive for marijuana use six

times while on pretrial release. We review the failure to apply the

reduction for clear error. United States v. Cusack, 901 F.2d 29, 31

(4th Cir. 1990). We find no clear error in the failure to apply the

reduction. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm

Ewing’s conviction and sentence. We require that counsel inform his

client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served

on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. EWING 3